A Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) response to al-Qaeda attacks on London or New York?

The idea of a Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) counter terrorist strategy may be worth a new ATS thread.

I predict bloody election campaigns in Canada and America as a 'Coalition of the Killing' tries to secure Madrid-style Liberal victories for Paul Martin, (protege of U.N. NWO boss, Maurice Strong) and John Kerry, the favourite child of Bilderbergers, David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger, General Alexander Haig and the late John Heinz II.

The Canadian Controlled Goods [WMD] certificate below shows that Al-Qaeda mercenaries and radical Socialists in Ottawa have been shipping Arab League WMD into Canada and America since March 2003.

Chatter suggests al-Qaeda's WMD stockpiles are positioned all over the continent and ready to be activated on word from al-Qaeda's paymasters in Ottawa (Canadian Privy Councillors), Brussels (European Union), Geneva (U.N. and NWO), Montreal (Power Corp and La Francophonie Syndicaliste) and Paris (Chirac's Gaullist nuclear 'Force de Frappe').

parisien.org...
parisien.org...
parisien.org...
parisien.org...
parisien.org...

I would be interested to see ATS readers comments on the idea of an Anglo-American MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) counter-terrorist strategy where, if a dirty bomb is exploded in New York or London, then measured, declared and appropriate operations will be undertaken against listed individuals, cities and sites in states which, through crimes of commssion or ommission, provide financial, electronic or human support for al-Qaeda and the Coalition of the Killing.

ATS readers could also suggest which individuals, cities and sites would be appropriate targets for such a response.

...the whole idea of MAD is that it prevents nuclear war from happening, and came about in the cold war. No one attacks, because they know they will be blown to bits as well....this wouldn't work on terrorism, as there is no "Al Qaeda Terrorist" country, or city...they operate secretly all over the place, we have nowhere to attack. This is why terrorism is NOT an act of war, but it is a crime, and should be handled by the countries where it happens. You can't just attack a whole country for what some individuals have done, this wouldn't prevent terrorism, you have no real targets.

Not good enough. The FBI treated the bombing of the World Trade Centre in 1993 as a limited criminal act because they didn't do "state-sponsored". The CIA had been crippled by the Clinton budget cuts

The Iraqi intelligence services behind the 1993 attack regrouped, partnered with French, Canadian and U.N. fascists, hired and trained al-Qaeda's Jihadists and pulled off 9/11.

MAD would work because al-Qaeda is, in fact, state sponsored. The al-Qaeda martyrs are hired. Their families are compensated. Their paymasters in Ottawa, Brussels, Paris, Geneva and Montreal have no more courage than the people of Spain.

What will you do after a suitcase nuclear bomb is exploded in a New York or London subway? Arrest the evaporated courrier?

You can't just attack a whole country for what some individuals have done, this wouldn't prevent terrorism, you have no real targets.

Sure you can, if that country is a known and active sponsor of terrorism, and if many of its people are radical extremists willing to blow themselves up to kill what they call "infidels".

Did we ever help Iraq to fight against others that could be a threat to the US and other countries in the past? sure we did.

Did we know that Iraq would turn against us and sponsor terrorism after we helped them? I do not think so. Noone would be so stupid as to do this knowing that the Iraqi government would sponsor terrorism later on, giving terrorists many of the weapons we gave Iraq.

This would leave the families of those in power in the States open for retaliation. I don't think that any of the families of government representatives live on the Moon, do they? If the government helped Iraq fight against Iran knowing that Iraq would later on turn around and backstab us, these people in power made sure to put their own families in harms way.

My guess is that we tried to make sure that Iraq was able to defend itself and attack Iran so that Iran would not pose a threat to other countries, one of them being the US. But Iraq had other plans, which Saddam made sure he did not mention to us.

[Edited on 20-4-2004 by Muaddib]

I went to all the links, were did it say they were helping bring goods into the us and Canada. THe only thing I read was about how thye train people in COUNTER Terrorism? Was it just because it was in Arabic?

I'm Confused please explain

you know, this may sound sick, but I really like this idea.

Say that OBL uses a nuke on NY or LA. We should then attack EVERY state we even SUSPECT of helping them. And not just attack, but utterly decimate - I'm talking 50 or so nukes on each country, utter destruction. These people think they know how to cunduct terrorism? We shall show them true terror.

Now, I know this sounds harsh, but if you think about it - if people knew they were gunna get nuked if any bomb went off, maybe they wouldn't help these people. Maybe, they might even actually help us catch them!

As for what sites would be apropriate - hmmmmm. Well I think all of afghan, Iraq, Iran (with the whole B-2 bomber wing dropping bombs, as they have the means to strike back so you have to get them without them knowing) probably more. Saudi Arabia isn't out of the question either, even though we need their oil.

It's a bit over the top. It's not like every person there supports terrorists. Sure there are large numbers who do in those countires, but I don't think it would warrant a 50 nuke bombing of the country.


[Edited on 20-4-2004 by D]

I thought that The Coalition Against Terror was already trying to eliminate every person or nation involved in 9/11 facts.

And, in any case, if they are convinced to work for their God, do you believe that the menace of killing some thousand people would stop them? They will be considered martyrs, so they will accept gracefully the death even of their own children.

Well I've said it before. As to my understanding if a nuke goes off in the US and we don't know who did it we will nuke the 3 most likely suspected states. With bush in office though I'd put the muslim death total at over 1 billion if that ever happened. The middle east would have to be renamed the radio active glass desert. The theory behind that is if they hit us once they can hit us again so let's eliminate any possibility behind that, we have enough nukes to crack the world in half if we have to.

Apart from the fact that a MAD response to a nuke going off in London or New York would be a knee-jerk, genocidal response, what about the international dangers of the fall-out produced from such a response.

zero lift

With a 'smart' MAD counter-terrorist strategy, you don't nuke imagined enemies, you destroy the base (al-Qaeda) of the human, financial and electronic intelligence networks which they are using to destroy you (9/11).

I have grounds to believe and do belive that Al-Qaeda mercenaries were and are hired by a United Nations bank cartel and paid with money stolen and laundered through Saddam's oil-for-food program by Maurice Strong P.C. (U.N. Deputy General), Paul Desmarais Sr. P.C. (Head of Power Corp of Montreal) and Paul Martin P.C. (Canadian Prime Minister).

Note P.C. means Canadian Privy Councillor

I suggest that the Amglo-American alliance give the leaders of the United Nations in New York, Power Corp in Montreal and the Canadian Privy Council in Ottawa, seven days to come up with a complete forensic audit of Iraq's oil-for-food program or, in the event of the next terrorist attack in the United Kingdom or America, face a MAD response, including - but not limited to - the physical destruction of the individuals and their properties as identified in the URL below.

www.infosecwest.com...

Be Smart but MAD!

Originally posted by HawksCAFE
The Iraqi intelligence services behind the 1993 attack regrouped, partnered with French, Canadian and U.N. fascists, hired and trained al-Qaeda's Jihadists and pulled off 9/11.

You are aware that you know nothing but bollocks? - crazy people here. Jeeez.

Originally posted by American Mad Man
you know, this may sound sick, but I really like this idea.

Say that OBL uses a nuke on NY or LA. We should then attack EVERY state we even SUSPECT of helping them. And not just attack, but utterly decimate - I'm talking 50 or so nukes on each country, utter destruction. These people think they know how to cunduct terrorism? We shall show them true terror.

Now, I know this sounds harsh, but if you think about it - if people knew they were gunna get nuked if any bomb went off, maybe they wouldn't help these people. Maybe, they might even actually help us catch them!

Genius at work, eh? You may know that most people in Iran are under 30 and not even less religious than Americans? You know that they are ruled/opressed by certain religious leaders and are in a state or progress at least politically?

*irony on*
Ah fu-ck them, nuke em!!!! Yea!
*irony off*

You probably never heared it but the Geneva convention and human signatures apply to people from Arabian countries as well. They are individuals and not one big group of weirdo's.
And if you want to know why there is hate and terrorism against the USA - it's people with your attitude that made it grow.

Remember the attack on two german special forces members last week in Iraq? They were though to be Americans, later the people who killed them officially excused for their mistake and the dead of those people.
So Iraqis are sorry for killing special forces from Germany - a western military force in their country and they accept it. You can either think of a conspiracy or rightfully think it was caused by appropriate politics with arabian countries and their people.

Killing mass amounts of people even if the ratio was 1000 bad guys for every 6000 civi's would seem a lil like the people we are trying to stop in the 1st place, we are the terrorists once something like that is started its, In all fairness were a country founded on terrorist acts, Thats the only reason we have this country to begin with, we came we terrorized the Indians an killed them all or made them into slaves, we stole their land an put them in places of supression, yes we arent like this as much now but its still our history or have we forgotten?
the USA always feels the need to step in an make a place into another democracy.

Interesting replies.

Extremist Liberals seem to deny victims of terror the right to destroy terrorist bases concealed by minorities inside a civilian population.

Extremist Conservatives seem to support the right to destroy terrorist bases by destroying the civilian population which conceals them.

Seems voters could compromise by making politicians publish a declared and debated list of MAD targets.

In advance of a terrorist attack, the civilian population will then know the price of concealing the perpetrators.

So what, for example, should an appropriate MAD response be to the detonation of a dirty (plutonium) bomb in London, New York or Ottawa?

We know what the Spanish do. What should the British, Americans and Canadians do?

HawksCAFE, So how would you respond if a London based terrorist group detonated a nuke on New York. Or vice versa, New York based group nukes London.

You gonna chuck your toys out of your pram, and respond by killing 8-10 million people to get 10-100 terrorists?




zero lift

Zero Lift: You didn't answer my question on the value of a published MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) list to tell the terrorist support networks of what our response would be based on the severity of their attack.

Instead you answered with your own question of what would I do if a London based terrorist group nuked New York.

That is what is known in logic as "reductio ad absurdam", meaning to reduce the argument to an absurdity so intelligent debate is stifled.

Hope ATS is capable of something better than that.

The terrorist supporters must know there are consequences to their actions, e.g. to exploding a 'dirty' bomb in New York making the city uninhabitable for a million years.

My questions again are: Should there be MAD consquences? Should the public targeted by the terrorists, e.g. New Yorkers have a say? What should those consequences be?

A published list of reprisals that would be undertaken should a terrorist act be perpetuated didn't stop the many European resistance organisations from carrying out what they believe were legitimate actions during WW2.
If a terrorist wishes to become a matyr, threatening to incinerate a city or two is not gonna stop him.
The inhabitants of the threatened cities are not gonna stand idly by.

What you suggest would create more terrorism for the US.

What you describe is not a method of stopping war, but it will give excuse for future conflict.

MAD only works if the other side gives a sh*t about the MAD threat. Todays terrorists don't, they believe their cause is just and will bear many privations to further said cause.


zero lift

Oh yeah, let's just bomb everyone...great idea.